Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
2 · The registry
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Nathaniel CharestOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4252-0365
Gabriel SinclairOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0802-2282
Stephanie A EytchesonOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0007-2421
Daniel T ChangOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.
Todd M MartinOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5844-8754
Charles N LoweOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9151-6157
Katie Paul FriedmanOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2710-1691
Antony J WilliamsOffice of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2668-4821
Funding
Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
New approach methodologies (NAMs) are an increasing priority in the field of toxicology to fill data gaps and reduce time and resources in chemical safety assessment. We describe an NAMs workflow that integrates an
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.